From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kok, Auke" Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc4-mm1: e1000e napi lockup Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:52:54 -0700 Message-ID: <46E1E456.8020605@intel.com> References: <46E0FB82.2040000@gmail.com> <20070907.010338.41638771.davem@davemloft.net> <46E17B41.4060200@intel.com> <46E1DF6E.6050801@garzik.org> <46E1E15E.7080406@intel.com> <46E1E391.7090907@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , jirislaby@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: Jeff Garzik Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:12437 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751303AbXIGXw5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Sep 2007 19:52:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46E1E391.7090907@garzik.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > Kok, Auke wrote: >> Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> Kok, Auke wrote: >>>> David Miller wrote: >>>>> From: Jiri Slaby >>>>> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:19:30 +0200 >>>>> >>>>>> I found a regression in 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 (since -rc3-mm1) in e1000e >>>>>> driver. >>>>>> napi_disable(&adapter->napi) in e1000_probe freezes the kernel on >>>>>> boot. >>>>> Yes, the semantics changed slightly in the net-2.6.24 tree the >>>>> other week and someone needs to fix it up. >>>>> >>>>> The netif_napi_add() implicitly does a napi_disable() call. Device >>>>> open must explicitly napi_enable() and device close must explicitly >>>>> napi_disable(), and if done elsewhere these calls must be strictly >>>>> balanced. >>>> I'll fix it... it's my patch that adds the new napi code to it and I >>>> need to get it ready for the merge window anyway. >>> well.... since its close to the merge window opening, we could see >>> what happens if DaveM pulls branch 'upstream' of >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git >>> >>> That should make this class of pre-merge-window annoyance go away. >> If I do that now I get a big merge conflict: > > oh you are _guaranteed_ conflicts. most of that is NAPI-area code that > got changed by both. actually that's the only thing it was, and fixing it up was trivial (took me about 3 minutes). it was 3x the napi code and once a struct indent change... I'll have a new e1000e napi patch for andrew in a sec. Auke